The pathetic Democratic capitulation on FISA is depressing to be sure. Sen. Feingold sounded pretty depressed when spoke to us about it yesterday on our show. He echoed the same frustration we have had for months now:
It's the latest chapter of running for cover when the administration tries to intimidate Democrats on national security issues. It's the most embarrassing failure of the Democrats I've seen since 2006, other than the failure to vote to end the Iraq war... It's letting George Bush and Dick Cheney have their way even though they're that unpopular and on their way out. It's really incredible.
That really sums it up. And when I asked him why the Democrats were folding, he gave a frank response. I asked him whether it was because they were being craven, cowardly or complicit. He simply said the first two. You can watch the interview here (transcript included).
I think the Democrats who voted with the Republicans in this case are actually worse than Joe Lieberman. That's a heavy charge. Why? Because at least we know what we're getting with Lieberman. Before Lieberman was not upfront about his positions and we had to educate people on them. But now everyone knows Sen. Lieberman is an avid and enthusiastic neocon. He's almost principled in sticking to those convictions, no matter how much we might disagree with him. Now, that he's largely given up the façade of being a Democrat, I mind him a lot less.
Whereas these other capitulating Democrats have neither courage nor convictions. It's more than a little embarrassing. I almost feel bad for them. Their weakness reeks. You have to avert your eyes to not look at them with some degree of pity and scorn.
Yet, out of the ashes of this disaster I see some hope. Why? Because for so long it was just Feingold who fought the good fight. Then Dodd joined. Somewhere after his 2004 loss, John Kerry got emboldened. He was then met by the old lion, Ted Kennedy. Leahy, Wyden, Boxer and now Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown have picked up the fight from time to time. And they were all on the list of 15 who did the right thing here.
And it grows. From a few they became many.
And now we have The Group of 15. The fifteen senators who this time had the courage to stand up to Bush. Some of the people on this list are new to the fight. There are some who should be on the list but aren't (no, I don't mean Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, they have never fought Bush, so their absence is totally unsurprising; yes, I'm looking at you Sheldon Whitehouse). Of course, Senator Kennedy would be on here if he was healthy. But overall, this is a start. This is fifteen United States Senators we can be proud of today:
Joseph Biden, DE
Barbara Boxer, CA
Sherrod Brown, OH
Maria Cantwell, WA
Chris Dodd, CT
Dick Durbin, IL
Russ Feingold, WI
Tom Harkin, IA
John Kerry, MA
Frank Lautenberg, NJ
Patrick Leahy, VT
Robert Menendez, NJ
Bernie Sanders, VT
Chuck Schumer, NY
Ron Wyden, OR
You might say that this is way too little, way too late. I would be more than tempted to agree with you. I understand this trend has been maddeningly slow to materialize. But we're going to need these fighters. Just because Bush leaves doesn't mean the fight is over. The process of getting Senate Democrats a spine is glacial but essential.
And they should also be on notice. If they get a Democratic president to work with, they will be all out of excuses. No more waiting for the next election. These fifteen have to rally the rest and actually get something done!
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Out with Reid.
Whichever Senator voted for this mess should be voted out.
Maybe before we start hand out kudos to any of these 15 Senators, we had better see how they are going to vote on this:
Where have all the Congressional conscieces gone? by Coleen Rowley
Congress is set to pass the latest AIPAC-initiated legislation (H. Con. Res. 362 and S. Res. 580 laying the groundwork for setting up a naval blockade of Iran) that would constitute a de facto authorization of war on Iran.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/where-have-all-the-congre_b_109448.html
We (all of us better get on top of this one, and ASAP, the House and Senate are pulling of another slight of hand trick on us. The FISA and telecom thing is of little concern if they are planing to give Bu$h authorization to start a war with Iran. Agape.
Maybe.
Let's hope that you are right.
See, I can postulate too.. :D
And, considering what happened with the coercive interrogations that led to stopping a MAJOR attack, I would say that I have reality on my side..
Michale.....
I'm a man of wealth and taste... I've been around for a long, long year, stole many a man's Soul and Faith.
What, can't I (Michale.....) get some sympathy?
If you meet me, have some courtesy,,, >:-D
Michale.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathy_for_the_Devil
This law replaces protection under the law with protection by priviledge alone.
Suffice it to say that there are enhanced protections for American citizens within these new measures..
Michale.....
We only have ourselves to blame for the pack of wolves we have allowed to feed on us.
I am still waiting for you to state the sections of the new FISA measures that violate the 4th Amendment...
Michale.....
Time travel??
But, ok... I get it... You are against the Telecom Pardon.. Again, that's a judgment call..
I happen to agree with Obama et al on it.. You don't.. Fair enough.
Michale.....
Ah yes, the "greater good" argument. Who, may I ask, gets to define good, let alone comparative good? The current set of criminals in office likely think of themselves as good-doers. Simply calling something good is not enough. Simply believing something is good is also not enough. As we have seen all too well, many of our leaders are incapable of nuance or complex reasoning and are also blinded by their own ideologies. Also, choosing a "good" path based on bad or cherry-picked information (e.g. provided by a fellow named Curveball) is probably not going to turn out well (or good). I see no reason whatsoever to trust those who have not established a 'good' track record.
In the current situation, the greater good to which you refer appears to be letting Telecoms off the hook so that they will not be subject to law suits or prosecution. Why is this a greater good? We expected privacy but now find out that they will give out our information to an unchecked executive branch. This "greater good" is a lack of attacks? By this reasoning any action can be a "greater good." Steal medical records...must be a greater good since there wasn't an attack. Kidnap my cousin... that must have been a greater good because there wasn't an attack. This line of reasoning is absurd. An open society has some drawbacks, but the greater good is the open society itself.
If that's my age, you are off by more than half.. Try again..
Regardless of that, it appears your argument is against the Telecom Pardons/Forgiveness/Immunity...
OK, I understand.. I get it.
Ya'all are bitter that you won't have a shiny new baseball bat you can cling to and beat the Bush Administration over the head with.
I get it.. I get the concept.
But, I firmly agree with Senator Obama in this.. And he says that the safety and security of this country trumps the bitterness and clingyness of ya'all...
As I said.. I agree with that. As any reasonable American would.
Michale....
The safety and security of we never trumps my or your individual freedoms - inalienable as they may be- but also thankfully guaranteed.
…and could someone comment on a provision in the bill that would seemingly allow information swept up when I call overseas – which if 'deemed' illegal not simply terroristic, could be held and recorded by the state? Fact of fiction?
1. Due to previous illegal eavesdropping, the Bush administration have got something to hold over the Democrats.
2. There is new evidence of clear and present dangers facing this country that requires these new measures. Democrats have been made privy to this new information.
3. Democrats are expecting big wins this election, including the White House and plan on using these new super powers to get even with the GOP..
4. Democrats are complicit in earlier acts of illegal eavesdropping and fear public disclosure of said complicity. Kinda a watered down version of #1..
Now, apply Occam's Razor to those possibilities.
Which is the more reasonable and logical sounding??
Michale.....
Niumber two makes no sense given the willingness of Bush to destroy invaluable intelligence assets just to inconvenience someone opposing his war of toy soldiers.
Number three makes no sense because only Liebermann has the morals and ethics to do that. (McDermott released evidence of a violation of law, but since it involved rethugs, you don't care.)
Number four makes no sense because the sins and crimes of your ilk are so deep and so broad that even the corporate media has reported some of it. Democrats don't need "future" criminalities" the unreported past crimes will suffice for a decade more of "revelations".
And you base this opinion on what level of expertise??
"In 2006 the Democrats said wait till we get the majority things will change. We are still waiting."
And perhaps you are still waiting because Democrats have finally came around to the truth.. That these measures ARE necessary.
Failure to even concede the possibility shows that your opinion is based on ego, not principles...
Michale.....
On the fact that not only had it worked for more than 2 decades before bush, but that it was the law of the land AND the most CT friendly piece of legislation EVER! When it allows a law enforcement agency to start a wiretap right now when you suspect that a person might be a terrorist, and then send your coworker to file the paperwork within three days, that's pretty damn useful. In addition to that there is the fact that over the years the FISC had more than 20,000 warrants asked for, and ALL BUT FIVE were granted!!
I base my own on the reading of the original FISA law, which states that a law enforcement agency is perfectly within itslegal rights to start a wiretap and then get someone else in the organization (since the person who started the wiretap is OBVIOUSLY too busy!) to go to the court with probable cause and get them to issue a warrant, as long as the paperwork gets to the FISC within 3 days!
Furthermore there's the fact that in the 20 years between FISA becoming law and bush getting elected the FISC was asked for warrants MORE THAN 20,000 TIMES, AND THEY ONLY SAID "NO" FIVE TIMES!!!!!!!!
Regardless of that, I ask you to consider one thing.
Isn't it SLIGHTLY possible that Obama and all the other Democrats for these new FISA updates are doing the RIGHT thing? That these measures ARE necessary for the safety and security of this country?
Your respect for Senator Obama is a matter of public record. Isn't it possible that Obama is right in this issue and you are wrong?
Hmmmm?? Even slightly possible??
Michale.....
If doing the right thing is saying "silly us, thinking we had a right to privacy, now you have our permission to spy on us and we forgive you for your past illegal acts", then yes by all means the democratic senators who voted for the anti-citizen bill are doing the right thing.
I have read the new House FISA updates in their entirety. There is absolutely ZERO Constitutional Conflict held within them. In fact, these new measures actually enhance the 4th Amendment protections Americans have.
So, if your argument is that these new measures are unconstitutional, I can assure you that you are wrong. Don't believe me?? Read them for yourself..
Now, if your argument is the issue of the Telecom Immunity provisions, that is a better argument to make.
But this aspect is simply a judgment call. There are many legal precedents establishing forgiveness for past acts, if it can be shown that the greater good is accomplished.
As I said, it's a judgment call.. Apparently Senator Obama feels that the necessary security measures trump the desire to have a new bat to beat the Bush Administration with. I have no reason to question Senator Obama's wisdom in this matter.
Michale.....
No??
Didn't think so...
Until you read them for yourself, you haven't a leg to stand on...
Michale.....